Dockets at a Glance
Senate Bill 1: Accounts Receivable Related to Residential Electric and Gas Supply
-
Maryland | Dual Bill | Electric | Gas | Purchase of Receivable (POR) | Residential Purchase of Receivables | SB1 | Supplier
Staff’s Report Recommends Continuation of POR for Existing Residential Contracts With Periods Greater Than One Year and Mandatory Dual Billing for Other Contracts
In Order No. 91303 issued on August 27, 2024, the Maryland Commission directed staff to file a report with its recommendation regarding implementation matt
-
Commission Files Order On Request For Clarification In SB 1
The Maryland Commission clarifies that January 1, 2025, is not definitively the “date certain” in Order 91303 for the elimination of residentia
-
RESA, CleanChoice Energy and NRG Energy File Request for Clarification of Order In SB 1: Accounts Receivable Related to Residential Electric and Gas Supply
From Maryland Supplier Coalition Request: [ *** ] The Supplier Coalition requests clarification on whether the Commission has set January 1, 2025, as the
-
Commission Issues Order On Implementation of SB 1 Requirements For Accounts Receivable
From the Maryland PSC Order No. 91303: [ *** ] ORDERED: (1) that as addressed herein, the provisions of COMAR 20.53.05.06 and 20.59.05.03 are hereby susp
-
Pepco, Delmarva And Potomac Edison File Responses To Appendix Questions And Compliance Plan In SB 1 Accounts Receivable Related To Residential Electric And Gas Supply
Some suppliers may require dual billing due to SB 1’s prohibition for residential POR. From Delmarva and Pepco Response: [ *** ] Scenario 1 – Assumption th
-
Parties File Comments in Accounts Receivable Related To Residential Electric And Gas Supply
The Commission requested briefs and other written comments on whether the POR prohibition of SB1 should apply to all residential retail choice accounts or
-
MD PSC Issues Order Directing Electric & Gas Utilities To File SCB Compliance Plans As Required Per SB 1
From the Order {***} The Commission previously issued Order No. 91220 in Case No. 9461, which requested comments from parties regarding the impacts of §§ 7
